News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?

With the latest re-emergance of the Rove scandal, one can't help but wonder “Fool me once, shame on you; ... fool me – you can’t get fooled again.” So it appears that the Bush/Cheney/Rove/GOP propaganda machine, and its mainstream media (MSM) facilitators, are losing control. Or are they?

…the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Bush’s overall job rating has slipped. …The survey, which was conducted from July 8-11 among 1,009 adults, and which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, finds that respondents, by a 49 percent-to-46 percent margin, disapprove of Bush’s job performance.… Furthermore, only 41 percent give Bush good marks for being “honest and straightforward” — his lowest ranking on this question since he became president. (The survey, however, was taken just before…allegations about Rove exploded into the current controversy.)

While the majority does not approve of Bush, there are still 46% who believe he’s doing a good job, and probably because of issues regarding the Supreme Court and of course the neocon belief as follows: “U.S. efforts to create democracies in countries like Afghanistan and Iraq might help transform the Middle East, but that will take time” …said Leigh Mitchell, a Republican from Chattanooga, Tennessee, with a 3-year-old daughter.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8614612/

But what is really difficult to understand is that 41% still view Bush as honest and trustworthy. Here’s a review of Bush to date:

Background Summary:
· George W. comes from families of wealth and privilege on both sides. He was born in Connecticut, and went to boarding school in Massachusetts, but presents himself as a ‘good old boy’ from Texas.
· Education: George W. was able to attend prestigious schools due to family name/connections and wealth. Throughout prep school and college, George W. was a mediocre student whose grades apparently were not good enough for admission to the University of Texas law school.
· Substance Abuse: Beginning in college, George W. followed the tradition of boozy fraternity parties and football weekends.

“September 4, 1976 …A police officer, Calvin Bridges, reported that Bush was swerving off the road when he pulled him over. Bush failed the sobriety test, and later tested a 1.0 on a blood-alcohol test…

Bush received a $150 fine, and his driver's license was suspended in Maine for no less than six months Bush, however, went to court to have his license reinstated about a month after his arrest, even though he did not take a rehabilitation course that is required for reinstatement. Although, by later confession, Bush was in his heavy-drinking period that would last until he was about 40, Bush testified in court that he drank only once a month, and had "an occasional beer." The court granted his request remove the suspension on his license.

What is just as questionable as Bush's decision to drive drunk that night with his underage sister in the car is how Bush related this event to the American people while trying to get himself elected to the nation's highest office. At first, he did not relate this to the American people at all; in fact, he lied about it several times.

· In 1998, Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater asked Bush if he had ever been arrested. Bush replied, "After 1968? No."
· In November 1999, on Meet the Press with Tim Russert Bush replied, "If someone was willing to go public with information that was damaging, you'd have heard about it by now. You've had heard about it now. My background has been scrutinized by all kinds of reporters. Tim, we can talk about this all morning."
· Also in 1999, Bush told CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan that there was not any "smoking gun" about unrevealed incidents in his past.
· In November 2000, Bush told a press conference that he did not go to court about the DUI, when he in fact did so.
· And then there was the infamous 1996 juror incident. When he was given the forms for jurors to fill out, there is a section where jurors are required to detail prior arrests and court proceedings they experienced. Bush left that section blank.

And this is just in regard to alcohol abuse, which continued until the age of 40.

· Military Record: Aside from controversy of how Bush was accepted in the National Guard with “the minimum passing score (25) on the pilot entrance aptitude test and listing no other qualifications” is the failure to serve the full six-year obligation required. Five months after the Globe first reported discrepancies [in Bush’s military service record], Bush’s biography on his presidential campaign Web site remains unchanged, stating that he served as a pilot in the Texas Guard from 1968 to 1973.

Bush's military records indicate that until May 1972 he fulfilled that obligation. But from that point on, Bush failed to meet the general requirements established by Federal law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures for "obligated" members of the Air National Guard, as well as the specific requirements for pilots established by the Air Force.

· Business Experience: "…as world oil prices plummeted in the winter of 1985-86, George W. Bush faced the most serious crisis of his 11-year career as a West Texas oilman. Bush's company owed more than $3 million in bank loans and other debts with no hope of paying them off in time. … A big Dallas-based firm, Harken Oil and Gas, was looking to buy up troubled oil companies… The buyout not only rescued Bush financially, but also gave him the collateral for an investment a few years later in the Texas Rangers baseball team. But the story of Bush's career in oil is mostly about his failure to succeed, and his personal life continued to be clouded by drinking."

How could an individual with no merit or qualification become president of the United States? If not by way of dirty politics and cover-ups, the Bush administration certainly has been the most controversial—major events of question as follows:

With only five years of political experience as Governor, Bush announced his candidacy for president in 1999…

· 2000 Presidential Election –

The U.S. presidential election of 2000 was one of the closest elections in U.S. history, decided by only several hundred votes in the swing state of Florida. …Republican candidate George W. Bush won Florida's 25 electoral votes by a razor-thin margin of the popular vote there.

In the speech, Rumsfeld made a passing reference to United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania after passengers attempted to stop al Qaeda hijackers. …But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania.

On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC's "Meet the Press," Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration's clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets. Russert: "So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?"

Cheney: "Yes. The president made the decision ... that if the plane would not divert ... as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out.

On 5 May, John Conyers and 89 members of congress asked George W. Bush, in a formal letter, to answer some questions about the document, including whether he or anyone in his administration disputes its accuracy. The Bush Administration has stated that they will not answer the questions.

…the attack violated international law as a war of aggression since it lacked the validity of a U.N. Security Council resolution to authorize military force, and was not an act of defence, and so violated the UN charter.

…these weapons and material have yet to be discovered. In January 2005, the US announced that the search for these weapons was over. This casts doubt on some of the accusations against Iraq. It had already been disclosed that documents supposedly showing Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium from Niger, which were highlighted by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address, were forgeries, and had been determined by the U.S. government to be forgeries several months before Bush cited them. Critics argue that Bush was irresponsible whether he failed to inquire about their authenticity, or knew they were forgeries but cited them anyway. (See Yellowcake forgery).

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons. George W. Bush, Speech to UN General Assembly, September 12, 2002

We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more. Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, February 5, 2003

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003

We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, March 30, 2003

We'll find them. It'll be a matter of time to do so. George W. Bush, Remarks to Reporters, May 3, 2003

I'm absolutely sure that there are weapons of mass destruction there and the evidence will be forthcoming. We're just getting it just now. Colin Powell, Remarks to Reporters, May 4, 2003

I'm not surprised if we begin to uncover the weapons program of Saddam Hussein -- because he had a weapons program. George W. Bush, Remarks to Reporters, May 6, 2003

No link between 9-11 attacks/al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein -

..on al-Qaeda, the group said it had found no "credible evidence" that Iraq helped the militants carry out the 9/11 attacks.

The commission did acknowledge that a meeting had taken place between al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and Iraqi intelligence officers during the 1990s in Sudan, but said there was no evidence it led to a working relationship.

The comments contradicted remarks by Vice-President Dick Cheney about Saddam Hussein's "long-established ties" with al-Qaeda and cast doubt on one of the Bush administration's justifications for invading Iraq.

WASHINGTON – In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

UPDATE: 2nd 2005 Fort Bragg Speech: The president mentioned September 11 five times in 30 minutes...AGAIN!

· 2004 Presidential Election -

After the 2004 U.S. Presidential election there were allegations of massive fraud, including but not limited to forging vote totals, miscounting votes for Kerry as votes for Bush, widespread voter intimidation and depriving neighborhoods likely to vote for Kerry of voting machines. …Over 40,000 alleged incidents were reported in the 2004 election, ranging from minor errors to direct voter intimidation, mishandled absentee and provisional ballots, malfunctioning or inaccurate machines and/or apparent hacking and vote tampering.

· Paid Pundits: Karen Ryan was the PR hack who posed as a reporter back in early 2004 to tout President Bush's Medicare reform plan in fake news spots paid for by taxpayer dollars. Armstrong Williams, was paid a sweet $240,000 (in taxpayer dollars), by the Department of Education to promote President Bush's No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation. Next came the news that syndicated columnist Maggie Gallagher had $21,500 of our taxbucks stealthily slithered into her cupped hand for encouraging marriage. The Bush Bunch's Department of Health and Human Servicecrats paid syndicated columnist Michael McManus $10,000 to help train counselors about marriage. And of course the all time presstitute, James Dale Guckert worked under the pseudonym Jeff Gannon as a White House reporter between 2003 and 2005, representing Talon News.

Aside from these major events, there are many other questionable activities associated with this administration, such as fines against Haliburton and so forth -- what’s with the 41% who still approve of Bush?

"As you may know, a federal prosecutor is investigating whether someone in the White House may have broken the law by identifying an undercover CIA agent to some news reporters. One reporter has gone to jail rather than reveal her source. How closely are you following this issue: very closely, somewhat closely, not too closely or not closely at all?"

My only guess is that supporters are primarily fundamentalists who turn a blind eye for the sake of their pro-life agenda. They are the neocons that believe the end justifies the means. And the rest are either uninformed (do not watch the news) or are misinformed (watch FAUX News).

The Ethics of Persuasion: Some Guidelines
by Edward L. Bernays
1. Do Not Use False Evidence
2. Do Not Use Illogical, Unsupported Reasoning
3. Do Not Falsely Represent Yourself
4. Do Not Conceal Your Purpose or Interest
5. Do Not Cover Up Consequences
6. Do Not Use Baseless Emotional Appeals
7. Do Not Oversimplify Complex Situations
8. Do Not Pretend Certainty
9. Do Not Advocate What You Don't Believe Yourself

So how well does Bush and Rove compare? Research on his life and political record clearly show a pattern of denial, either via:

1) Avoidance/Silence, e.g.: Doug Wead tapes: Bush worried that allegations of cocaine use would surface in the campaign. When Mr. Wead said that Mr. Bush had in the past publicly denied using cocaine, Mr. Bush replied, "I haven't denied anything." He refused to answer reporters' questions about his past behavior, he said, even though it might cost him the election. Defending his approach, Mr. Bush said: "I wouldn't answer the marijuana questions. You know why? Because I don't want some little kid doing what I tried."
2) Suppression Of Information, e.g.: Bush will not give permission for his grades to be released.
3) Shift In Position, e.g.:

WASHINGTON - President Bush said Monday that if anyone on his staff committed a crime in the CIA-leak case, that person will "no longer work in my administration." His statement represented a shift from a previous comment, when he said that he would fire anyone shown to have leaked information that exposed the identity of a CIA officer.

BUSH: Somalia. Started off as a humanitarian mission then changed into a nation-building mission, and that's where the mission went wrong. The mission was changed. And as a result, our nation paid a price.

And so I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building.

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator that's in our and it's in our when it's in our best interests.

But in this case, it was a nation-building exercise. And same with Haiti, I wouldn't have supported either.
....
BUSH: I don't think so. I think, I think what we need to do is convince people who live in the lands they live in to build the nations. Maybe I'm missing something here. I mean, we're going to have kind of a nation-building corps from America? Absolutely not.

Our military's meant to fight and win war. That's what it's meant to do. And when it gets over extended, morale drops.
...

But I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military. It needs to be in our vital interest, the mission needs to be clear, and the exit strategy obvious.

I've been wondering something.... Do you really think that Bush is the basterd in all this? Or do you think that he's an unintelligent figurehead who just does and says what he's told? I have to lean toward the later personally. Considering this I can blame him for being a complicite jackass but I really don't feel I can nail him down personally for the actions of the administration.

I'm not a supporter and I'm not really a conservative, as you know, but I really can't agree when people directly blame him for many of the things that have happened during his presidency because I think he has little control (or takes little control) of what's going on. I'll definitely blame him for that though.

I've been wondering something.... Do you really think that Bush is the basterd in all this? Or do you think that he's an unintelligent figurehead who just does and says what he's told? I have to lean toward the later personally. Considering this I can blame him for being a complicite jackass but I really don't feel I can nail him down personally for the actions of the administration.

Staff: Mentor

Interesting point in October 2000 about Bush's opinion on Somalia, and his point-

I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war. I think our troops ought to be used to help overthrow a dictator when it's in our best interests.

This is well before (11 months) the attacks on the US by al-Qaida. To how many other dictators would he being referring? I cannot think of any.

Interesting point - "when it is our best interest" - not the interest of those whose country is being occupied. And certainly in Halliburton's interest!

I can't believe he just spontaneously thought of this in October - but rather it seems it had been around for sometime. Probably when he picked Cheney as a running mate.

Then Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill revealed that Iraq was mentioned in the first cabinet meeting in the Bush Administration.

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

Based on his interviews with O'Neill and several other officials at the meetings, Suskind writes that the planning envisioned peacekeeping troops, war crimes tribunals, and even divvying up Iraq's oil wealth.

He obtained one Pentagon document, dated March 5, 2001, and entitled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield contracts," which includes a map of potential areas for exploration.

“It talks about contractors around the world from, you know, 30-40 countries. And which ones have what intentions,” says Suskind. “On oil in Iraq.”

During the campaign, candidate Bush had criticized the Clinton-Gore Administration for being too interventionist: "If we don't stop extending our troops all around the world in nation-building missions, then we're going to have a serious problem coming down the road. And I'm going to prevent that."

CBS Correspondent Lesley Stahl.

Bush is deviously shrewd. He knows what's going on. He's got the power, and the money, and the adulation of his supporters.

I've been wondering something.... Do you really think that Bush is the basterd in all this? Or do you think that he's an unintelligent figurehead who just does and says what he's told? I have to lean toward the later personally. Considering this I can blame him for being a complicite jackass but I really don't feel I can nail him down personally for the actions of the administration.

I'm not a supporter and I'm not really a conservative, as you know, but I really can't agree when people directly blame him for many of the things that have happened during his presidency because I think he has little control (or takes little control) of what's going on. I'll definitely blame him for that though.

Bush is responsible for anyone who answers to him. He allows his men to lie and do these things. He is just as responsible as they are.

It is unfortunate that they deleted it but there used to be a thing on Comedy Central's Daily Show where they did Governor Bush debating President Bush.

It was funny as hell when they had the 'governor' stating "I don't think the US military should be used for regime change" followed immediately with president Bush stating that he was going to institute regime change in Iraq.

Hmm, you have a nice laundry list here...but it seems to me that a lot of this is filled with half truths or distorted commentary. BTW...I haven't watched Fox news since it first debuted sometime in the early 90's, so please spare me the "faux" diatribe.
Maybe you can take one item at a time and we can pick over the "Opposing" view.

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, August 26, 2002

For instance..this one. The Duelfer report lists the weapons found within Iraq..and also does not rule out weapons being moved to Syria prior to invasion. So, how is this a lie?

Hmm, you have a nice laundry list here...but it seems to me that a lot of this is filled with half truths or distorted commentary. BTW...I haven't watched Fox news since it first debuted sometime in the early 90's, so please spare me the "faux" diatribe.
Maybe you can take one item at a time and we can pick over the "Opposing" view.

For instance..this one. The Duelfer report lists the weapons found within Iraq..and also does not rule out weapons being moved to Syria prior to invasion. So, how is this a lie?

Hmm, you have a nice laundry list here...but it seems to me that a lot of this is filled with half truths or distorted commentary. BTW...I haven't watched Fox news since it first debuted sometime in the early 90's, so please spare me the "faux" diatribe.
Maybe you can take one item at a time and we can pick over the "Opposing" view.

For instance..this one. The Duelfer report lists the weapons found within Iraq..and also does not rule out weapons being moved to Syria prior to invasion. So, how is this a lie?

I don't think that possibility can ever be ruled out, but that doesn't let Bush off the hook.

The Bush administration has held out the possibility that illicit weapons and their components were secreted by Hussein across the border into Syria. This may still be true, but Duelfer's team did not find any proof to support this notion, the official said. "They have no evidence of this," the official said. "It's an unresolved issue." Syria denies it aided the hiding of illicit materials.

Maybe Ivan can speak on this, but it seems that with all the people that were questioned by the Duelfer team, maybe it is more likely that someone would have known and talked than not. That's just speculation on my part.

For instance..this one. The Duelfer report lists the weapons found within Iraq..and also does not rule out weapons being moved to Syria prior to invasion. So, how is this a lie?

Strictly speaking "No doubt" does not equate to "does not rule out weapons being moved"

(edit: That's not quite what I mean. Kat, your tone strikes me as "I still think there might be weapons" which is a position of doubt, not certainty. So whereas Cheney may have truly felt "no doubt" at the time - and I am not sure of that, see the second question below; at this point we have considerable doubt and steps should be taken to ensure that such a major blunder never happens again on our part!!) Notwithstanding - I maintain my first question:

Why would Saddam ditch his weapons if he was being invaded?? This seems extremely counterintuitive.

Less strictly speaking, (and I'll ask you to forgive my ignorance here) how reliable is the Daulfur report? If it was not reliable, do we know at this time that Cheney knew at *that* time that it was not reliable? This question I throw out to the general community.

I've been wondering something.... Do you really think that Bush is the basterd in all this? Or do you think that he's an unintelligent figurehead who just does and says what he's told? I have to lean toward the later personally. Considering this I can blame him for being a complicite jackass but I really don't feel I can nail him down personally for the actions of the administration.

I'm not a supporter and I'm not really a conservative, as you know, but I really can't agree when people directly blame him for many of the things that have happened during his presidency because I think he has little control (or takes little control) of what's going on. I'll definitely blame him for that though.

You can apply that argument to any individual in any endeavor.

Bush rightfully gets the brunt of the blame, as he is the one at the prow, who is most directly involved with manifesting his view as best he can.

His view is roughly :
~"energy security" for the country
~a "one step at a time" approach to fostering a "culture of life"
~and a general attitude of US dominance of threats.

Many people have no problem with *any* of these, .... and in other manifestations I wouldn't, either.

If "energy security" meant developing sustainable energy sources at home, instead of ensuring oil flow, I would support Bush.

If "culture of life" meant war as a final and barely-thinkable option, I would support Bush.

If dominance of threats meant maintaining superiority through education and health care and so on, I would support Bush.

Strictly speaking "No doubt" does not equate to "does not rule out weapons being moved"

(edit: That's not quite what I mean. Kat, your tone strikes me as "I still think there might be weapons" which is a position of doubt, not certainty. So whereas Cheney may have truly felt "no doubt" at the time - and I am not sure of that, see the second question below; at this point we have considerable doubt and steps should be taken to ensure that such a major blunder never happens again on our part!!) Notwithstanding - I maintain my first question:

Why would Saddam ditch his weapons if he was being invaded?? This seems extremely counterintuitive.

Less strictly speaking, (and I'll ask you to forgive my ignorance here) how reliable is the Daulfur report? If it was not reliable, do we know at this time that Cheney knew at *that* time that it was not reliable? This question I throw out to the general community.

The Duelfer report is reliable and it makes sense, at least in hind sight.

Hussein was essentially playing Low-Hole Chicago (a poker game where the high hand and low hand split the pot) and trying to bluff his way to both sides of the pot at the same time. He wanted to convince the US he had low hand (no weapons of mass destruction) while convincing Iran he had high hand (enough weapons of mass destruction stashed away that Iran better not think about ressurecting that old war the two countries).

Hussein had to be bluffing one or the other (us or Iran). It was plausible that Hussein might be deceiving the inspectors - that would certainly be the preferred method. Except its hard to make an operational weapons program invisible. It's easier to eliminate any hard evidence by actually eliminating the weapons, but be evasive enough that no one could no for sure whether he was hiding something or not.

In all fairness, prior to the invasion, it was impossible to know for sure that weapons had been eliminated. However, considering the difficulty of hiding an operational weapons program, it would be irresponsible to claim Iraq definitely had weapons of mass destruction with no evidence. To have no weapons of mass destruction turn up at all goes beyond just having some evidence but miscalculating the extent of Hussein's weapons program. To have no WMD turn up at all smacks of incompetence or worse.

Half truths would be the hundreds of conspiracy theories, such as Bush is the anti-Christ (which he is but it can't be proven :tongue: ). Distortions? Please--the media sources, if anything are being conservative for fear that...hey you forgot the Newsweek retraction of truth under pressure from the White House!

also does not rule out weapons being moved to Syria prior to invasion. So, how is this a lie?

Mmm, so this means almost for sure that Syria has weapons of mass destruction, the evidence is clear. So what shall we do now, knowing that Syria has WMD and also contacts with Muslim terrorism ? Anyone going for an invasion ?

Karl Rove, master of deceit, is himself pushing the accusations against him (outing of a CIA agent) to the media. This story has dominated the press to the point that little is heard about Iraq. If you think back, the Rove story hit the media about the same time as the downing street memos. Iraq was, and still is, awash with increasing insergent attacks at the time.

As ,SOS2008 mentioned, Rove has his own fake jounalists to keep the story at the top of the news.

Actually, I did thorough research of Bush and Kerry prior to the 2004 election (what a concept, huh?) so just had to update a few things.

Even if we debated each of these events separately (and we nearly have in this forum), the question I put forth to Bush supporters is has Bush lied? If so, how many times does it take before you will feel he is no longer honest and trustworthy? Once, or maybe strike three you're out? I believe there is solid evidence for at least three lies in the "laundry list" above.

There is another poll that was done this week after the Rove scandal hit the news again, and I believe the percentage of people who still believe in Bush was even higher than the poll quoted in the OP. :surprised

Also, the polls show that Americans are still just as "hostile and intense," especially about the war in Iraq, as they were at the time of the 2004 election. Conservatives seem confused by this. They somehow think that the election should have ended opposition of any kind including questions about the war and our incompetent, dishonest president.

Further, poll analysts have been saying that approval regarding honesty go up or down depending on the success of the war. What the heck does this have to do with Bush being a lier? Either he is a lier or he isn't. So typical.